/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2000876
painting and sculpture have been popular ever since mankind was hunting mastodon and shitting in the corner of a cave. just like the crazies that predict the apocalypse is next Thursday, your predictions aren't supported by any empirical data.

>>2000876
yeah theres one more art movement left in traditional. its the most important one by far, but it's still the last one. kind of a bummer knowing theres nowhere else to go.

and no digital isn't the future.

>>2000895
is this satire?

>>2000895
>yeah theres one more art movement left in traditional.
Explain?

>>2000897
wait til this summer. easier to explain in pictures than in words.

>>2000897
it's illastrat. he think he's going to be the last prophet of painting and then drop the mic.

Painting will never be dead. There is still tons of uncharted territory there. Neither will sculpture. But mediums do die. Take fresco and tempera which is what artists used in the middle ages up until the renaissance. That's what Michelangelo used to paint the sistine chapel. Those mediums are almost completely gone now, and that which still exists is irrelevant. Traditional paint on canvas is fading away.

>>2000903
>Traditional paint on canvas is fading away
citation needed

watercolor will never die, it's the single most easiest fastest medium to paint with without any hassle like oils or big investment like into a computer and tablet.

>>2000876
you've got it all wrong op. digital art is not what digital photography was to film. there is nothing to replace. furthermore, the public has yet to value digital art the same as traditional art.

Watercolor was always irrelevant, sorry.

>>2000906
"the public has yet to value digital art the same as traditional art."

Thats going to change

>>2000905
>easiest
>not expensive
>watercolor

topkek

>>2000909
for magic the gathering illustrations? sure. for museums and galleries? unlikely. traditional art is the creation of a physical art object, you can't do Rodin or van Gogh on a computer screen.

digital art will largely take over in the field of illustration and traditional art will retain its foothold in the sphere of fine art.

Leave it to /ic/ to absolutely have no idea what's happening to the art scenes outside of their dragons and mercs, top kek.

>>2000909
no, not for the foreseeable future.
humans are ruled by their senses and a digital painting can only be experienced through one of them.

>>2000916
Elaborate

>>2000909
why do you think that's going to change. there's no price of materials. no originality to the end product ( in that its reproducable). it is always lit in an unnatural way ( can't paint digitally with sunlight). there's SO many things that make digital art not the same as traditional. not the least of which being ease of use of traditional to accomplish what you need to accomplish in a painting.

>>2000876
>Great art has always had an indexical quality to it, it describes the greater culture around it.

This is a very wrong viewpoint. Do you look at a beautiful painting and dismiss it if it doesn't reflect some vague concept of the artist's culture? If anything, the cultural explosion you describe is making the the boundaries between cultures blur and become increasingly irrelevant.

As a painter, regardless of what you use to paint, the easiest way to reach the most people will involve your paintings being rendered on electronic screens. Regardless of what medium you prefer, I don't think most people will really care about the particulars of how a .jpeg was made.

>>2000915

Digital Art can still be very expressive

>>2000921
>As a painter, regardless of what you use to paint, the easiest way to reach the most people will involve your paintings being rendered on electronic screens
yes, but a hundred likes on facebook or a thousand favs on dA is not the same as having shown in local galleries and museums, or a matter of selling to original artwork to the viewer. you should certainly use social media and websites to get people to your shows or your studio, but traditional artists typically work as fine artists, who have different career goals than illustrators.

Also I don't agree with anon that art must necessarily reflect culture, but I think that will always be a relevant topic and motivation in art.

>>2000922
I agree. What's your point?

I'm merely showing that you don't need traditional art to be expressive like a van gogh or turner

>>2000916
While this is just shitposting you kinda have a point.

I only take a glimpse at /ic/ every now and then but it always appears to be almost all drawing, followed by painting. With the themes being relatively similar.

Not saying that is a bad thing necessarily. Maybe I just need to lurk more.

>>2000927
it's not a matter of being expressive, it's a matter of creating a physical art object.

Why does /ic/ have to be a boring shithole where plebes show their anime sketches. Theoretical talk is much more fun. And it's much more beneficial to the people with careers.

>>2000930
its 4 chan what do you expect. Its a weaboo haven

>>2000920
>no originality to the end product
this is the biggest reason why the general public does not respect digital art as much as traditional. laugh all you want at modern art but someone would sooner pay thousands for their bullshit than any of the silly knight and castles pictures jaime mullins fanboys jerk off to.

>>2000929
In some ways reality no longer means physicality. I'm sitting here in a room right now that I'm paying no attention to. Isn't this website more real in this moment? I don't think that a "physical object" requirement is necessary just like I don't think that there's a distinction between this room and the internet.

when you see a painting in real life compared to one composed of pixels you will realize that traditional art will never go away. I bet 90 percent of the people on this board have never stepped foot into a art gallery of any sort

>>2000932

Your thinking in the now, this thread is about the future.

Art is art is art.

the moment traditional paintings dies is the moment real skills die.

>>2000936
exactly. it's beyond me how you cannot realize that traditional art will never be succeeded by digital.

>>2000935

Look at a Caravaggio. Very glossy, thin glasses, and a thick layer of varnish that makes the whole thing shiny. You can't see a canvas texture, you'd have to look very hard even to see any brush strokes. I've seen digital paintings that look more tangible than that.

>>2000940

I think it will be succeeded by digital, that's the point

>>2000939
with lazy artists like op, it will happen. it's the future of art.

>>2000932
thats not what i meant. i thought i made that clear. by originality i meant that there is only one of the paintings. it can't be reproduced. digital is an endlessly reproducable file. theres no "original" version that is distinguishable from the next version.

That's the biggest problem with digital actually. One way to fix it is to print the file and then immediately delete it so that only the print exists. Another way is physically marking the print that's original. Something that can't be replicated. Like a finger print or something. I've been trying to think of ways around that

>>2000933
in a gallery setting, a physical object is going to be a lot louder than an image on a screen. your focus is on the computer right now, in a museum your focus is on the walls.

>>2000964
you know the way around that? paint traditionally

>blah blah i'm tired of oil painting /ic/

great op. go buy yourself a tablet, join the 'art revolution', and leave fine art to the people who understand the timeless value of it.

>>2000942
caravaggio, like many other oil painters, also used glazes that can't be reproduced on a screen. as light passes through the layers of glaze it comes back to the eye, which creates a composite of the layers that has a luminosity that digital can't mimic. or look at the impasto of van Gogh, his paintings have actual three dimensional depth that you can't get on a screen.

>>2000976
really just look at van gogh. if its true his paintings are a response, as is all of impressionism, to the development of photography i really don't think there are any better ways to sell traditional art.

Oil paint is the greatest medium there is. It's not the medium that has defects, its your subject matters and style. If you make such unimpressive works in the greatest medium there is I feel bad for you.

"Classical oil painting technique" doesn't exist especially not in the context of "photorealistic paintings."

Lets talk about things digital can do that traditional can't. Limitless ability to manipulate an image, unlimited color palette, colors that are 100% saturation/intensity (Look at an oil color chart that marks the place of various pigments on a color wheel, there are no colors on the outside of the circle because its impossible to get full chroma with physical pigment), You can use actual photos, you can incorporate unlimited other effects besides a brush stroke, etc. Whats the most essential part of two dimensional art? An image. Impasto was never essential to painting. And when it comes to flat 2D images, digital as a medium literally has no boundaries.

>>2000984
>digital as a medium literally has no boundaries

It's entirely dependent on electricity and the function of a device.

>>2000982
My traditional art isn't inadequate. I painted this when I was 18 years old. It's about looking forward and acknowledging when a medium that has fewer constrictions come up.

>>2000988

I actually think that that's a beautiful thing. It's as if the object no longer matters, only the image.

>>2000991
And you do you and let other do what they do.

>>2000993
Everyones free to do whatever they want, that's why its art

>makes boring kitsch/still lifes
>wonders why he's bored with traditional painting

>>2001000

I'm not going to get into a pissing match, but it's a study/exercise. Lets see what you got then.

>>2001003
see what?
what you've posted so far along with all your pseudo-intellectual babble makes your boing personality obvious. try coming down from your ivory tower and getting a little life in you. it will reflect in your art.

as the saying goes: a poor workman blames his tools.

>>2000990
Not impressed. You make it seem like you've exhausted the possibilities of the medium so that oil paint can no longer contain your high concepts or you've surpassed the great masters. And I'm not even talking about technique. There's literally way too much for a person to study in art that doesn't even have to do with the medium or technique yet can be expressed in oil paint. I can assure you that if any of the true geniuses of the past when oil paint was the top medium (as well as fresco) had lived for hundreds of years they would not lack for masterpieces in oil.

>>2001009
I'm not saying that oil is an inept medium. I love oil. It was my entire life for several years. The question isn't whether or not it capable (You'd be a complete idiot to say that), the question is, is it still relevant. Is painting in oil in 2015 still important?

>>2000991
>>2000876
Whilst I disagree with your views, they're very well thought out and I wish you the best in what you do. Huion is a good choice if you're not comfortable with dishing out £££ (or $$$) on a Wacom.

I would however recommend you take some time away from digital media and walk around a gallery or two, there's a lot lost in the transition. It will be a symbiotic relationship in the future if anything, physicality is an essential part of the medium.

>>2001015
You did say it has "constrictions." But in any case, seeing that it can depict anything as long as it's pictorially possible, then it can still be relevant based on what you paint. But relevance is a word used today by gimmick artists or those who follow trends, usually both, since gimmick seems to be the trend. Traditional mediums have the advantage that they do not draw attention to the medium itself.

>>2000984
look what zorn did with 4 tubes of paint. how often do you need 100% saturation? or "unlimited colors"? using a limited palette generally makes for a more unified painting anyway, and there are tons of oil pigments, I've yet to dream up a color I couldn't mix. I won't even comment on photobashing being a pro, it's good for concept art but isn't going to replace traditional techniques in fine art because it doesn't compare. limitless ability to manipulate an image is nice, but oil painting is a very workable medium, and if you've done proper planning (as you should), you won't need to make dramatic alterations. impasto has been an important painting technique for sometime, as has glazing, as does the scale of some massive canvases, and the value of the original art object. digital art just doesn't have these aspects, which is why it's a godsend for concept art but will never replace traditional as the go-to for fine art.

the fact that some people in this thread actually believe traditional art is ever going to vanish, or lose in demand baffles my ass.

If anything the digital market will indeed grow, it's easy, cheap and today any monkey can add a filter and a chromatic.a to get a "decent" low value piece.

let the digital stuff grow, it's price lower, then the traditional stuff will slowly become an almost luxury product most rich people will want over shitty digital stuff. smell, texture, and depth are something you can't get digitally. it's in our nature, even people on ic, to complete a blank canvas when we see one. this will never change.

that's in the far future though.

Yes, traditional art still matters. Oils definitely so.

Originality, presence, longevity, finality, and definition are all areas where oils surpass digital.

>originality
Not "never-been-done-before hurr dur blow-your-sheeple-mind" expression; I'm talking about the ability to create something which will always exist in the singular. Digital does not exist in the singular.
>presence
Following up originality, can I physically put the actual piece in the room without it being too imposing ("imposing" is actually more for 3D modern art)? Can I look at the piece and say "This is THE original work in front of my eyes," or is it essentially a print?
>longevity
Digital art does not age well, due to the advance of technology and frequency of digital fads, and many nontraditional mediums physically do not age well.
>finality
This is more related to the skill of artists than audience desire. There are A LOT of completed digital pieces from decent artists that look painfully unfinished. Probably need a whole other thread to elaborate and debate this.
>definition
Technology is still nowhere near good enough to emulate the visuals of an actual painting. It MIGHT be able to do so in the future, but it can't now.

>I think digital painting is the medium of this next major event
Fine artists have be working with new technology since the dawn of art, digital has been worked with for over 50 years. Illustrators started jumping to digital about 20 years ago, sharing zip drives and everything. If you couldn't work with digital by they early 2000s than you were fucking yourself out of a lot of work.

>tl;dr
I know it's nice to feel special and like you're on the cusp of something big, but you're not. And ultimately, thinking there's some kind of artistic competition between mediums is pointless.

>>2000924
youre %100 percent correct. Having your work shown is at a local gallery is absolutely not the same as having it have recieve mass recognition by hundreds of thousands of people digitally, lol.

if the method by which people see your art matters more to you then by how widely seen your art is then i have to question your goals as an artist.

>>2000964
its actually the biggest advantage of digital lol, if you want to artificially limit the reproduciblity of your artwork why even bother painting digitally?

>>2001055
Doing so makes it one of a kind/edition, thus making it more "valuable".

At least that is the goal of doing something like that.

>>2000973
but traditional painting is the opposite of timeless, i dont think you realize the amount of effort even museums go through to preserve their works. What makes you think the work of your average artist has a chance of being preserved for posterity?

>>2001055
this is why there's even a debate here. if you want to reproduce it so it gets viral as fuck that's one goal, if you want to make a one-of-a-kind object to sell or exhibit in a physical space, that's another path entirely. digital supports the former goal, traditional the latter.

>>2001059
Data retention is hard, who is to say that in 100 years you will even be able to find a copy of whatever painting? I mean, look how many documents from the 90s are still available on the internet, unless it was major it's been destroyed by time and neglect.

At least with digital you could sign and verify works cryptographically.

>>2000876
no. i think that's a misunderstanding of what makes good art, although it's obviously a common one, perhaps even by a large majority.

the greatness of a piece of art has for the most part had fuck all to do with it's times except by the fact that it was made in those times. all art and indeed all artifacts are "indexical" in that way, you learn just as much about ancient greece from studying graffiti , adverts and pots as you do from great bronzes and temples, and the low art may well tell you more about the spirit of the times.

great art is something outside of time, because it stays great despite time. if kritios had carved his youth yesterday it'd still be great.

so as to oil painting, seeing as art is timeless, a medium can't die. you can still make great works of art in oil. don't confuse relevancy with greatness.

you guys realize that when being human will just mean being a brain in a jar connected to a robot and being feed with information, the single way to enjoy physical art is by a digital object which transforms the outside light in digital information? at that point there will be nothing to differentiate the traditional art of digital, even more, by that time digital art might find new mediums (more advanced software programs) which might make the digital art superior, while traditional art will forever be hold back by the law of physics

That's why I'd rather just be god tier with a pen/pencil.

>>2000915
>digital art will largely take over in the field of illustration

Are you from the early 2000s or something? Digital art has taken over everything within the entertainment industry years ago.

>>2001219
ok

>>2001183
until that day...

You digital fags realize I can take a picture of a canvas and show it to everyone, right? Everyone values something they can hold, smell. I love to touch paintings, feel the texture, ect. Sorry about someone getting butthurt.

>>2001123
No it wouldn't still be great. That was great in its time, if someone did that today (people are still doing classical realism as masterfully as artists in the renaissance) it would be skimmed over, and no one would pay attention because that kind of art isn't relevant anymore. You won't see much classical painting in a museum of modern art. It's not historically relevant to our age.

>>2001370
it doesn't matter if people pay attention. people paying attention isn't the arbiter of good work.

something being "historically relevant" (ie. old) isn't the same thing as being good art. art isn't just a way of marking time. any object does that. art is something else.

people may pass over a work today, and in 50,000 years they might find it in an underground vault and it might blow their minds completely. was it not a masterpiece when it was painted?

was old van gogh objectively some crazy loser until he was made a genius by recognition after his death, or was he always a genius who went unappreciated during his life? what if he had never been appreciated, does that change the fact of his genius?

the laocoon was buried for like 2000 years, was it not a great work of art while it was unknown?

of course you know what my answers are to these rhetorical questions i'm putting to you but if yours are different then so be it... but we're probably not going to make a good couple :p

You need a solid foundation, right?

>>2000876
>I was trained by my father (an architect) from a very young age to draw well. He was extremely critical and pushed me very hard practically since I could hold a pencil. As a teenager I learned classical oil painting technique and I have photorealistic paintings, several from observation in my portfolio.
I wish I was your brother.

>>2001339
> I love to touch paintings, feel the texture, ect
>I love to touch paintings
>touch paintings

If I ever saw you touching a well done painting with your greasy fingers, I'd knock you the fuck out, you disrespectful pleb.

>>2001339
nope, sorry. it's either digital or nothing. there is no point to scanning artwork or taking pictures to share your traditionally created work. why don't you stop living in the past and buy a tablet? learning to paint traditionally is ridiculous when you can learn to paint digitally and transcend all limitations. i'm sorry for everyone one of you idiots who start painting with oils or acrylics and think that your work will have any longevity. it's a waste of time. the sooner you convert to digital the better.

>>2001492
>asking people to be hacks

>>2001492
plot twist: i do both.

>>2001370
>(people are still doing classical realism as masterfully as artists in the renaissance)
Classical realists today are far removed from most of what defines Renaissance. They see only the most superficial and think they paint as well or better. Actually good painters, both technically and everything else that can add towards good art don't call themselves classical realists.


>no one would pay attention
There's nothing to pay attention to to begin with. Besides, most people are actually much more impressed with a well done painting done today than one that was made earlier, for the most part, not counting the truly great masterpieces, because it's just expected of old masters to be good painters.

>>2001492
6/10 breddy good troll

>>2000915
>traditional art is the creation of a physical art object, you can't do Rodin or van Gogh on a computer screen.
Digital sculpting has been possible for around a decade, digital modelling has been around for more than twice that time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkm5Erga9vQ
Impasto effects can be emulated by software as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8pt8gyXKsA

>>2001701
digital sculpting is hardly the same thing as viewing a rodin in the round, full of weight and impressions from the artist's hands, the eyes given depth by creating pits for pupils that gallery light doesn't sink into, massive sculptures of figures that are larger than life.

In commercial art, oil is practically dead, but it's still alive and well in galleries and personal work.

>>2000922
Is this from Second Life or something?

>>2001040
3D printers are already a thing, and will probably improve. I think the more salient point is that of originality vs. reproductions.

>>2000903
>fresco
>dead
>this is what heathens actually believe
Do you think they print out posters to paste over church walls these days?

>>2003788
protestantism is big these days, and they typically have little to no decoration in their churches. the only catholic church I've been to had statuary, no paintings. I'm sure fresco is still used but nowhere even close to how common it was in the Renaissance.

>>2000903
>I live in a cultureless hell-hole
American pls go

>>2003837
>protestantism
You had one job, Luther. One fucking job.

>>2000876
The physicality of it all is what really brings me pleasure when working on a piece. Getting fucking paint and charcoal all over the place, flinging papers every which way and just letting everything flow. Or how subtle the light is reflected of a mounted painting, showcasing the textured real surface of the illusion.

It's a satisfaction you can't recreate with digital. For me the fun of creation is the act, the final product is just a byproduct. Sure using digital tools will yield a cleaner end result or open up more possibilities, but it's not going to put as big a smile on my face.

But having a undo button is cool.